I'm a fairly new judge, so please stay away from any debate jargon or talking fast. Please time yourselves during speeches and prep time. Tell me how to vote, judge, and weigh the round. In the end, I will vote for which side makes the most sense to me and has the most important impact. I don't know K's, theory, or topicality, so if you are going to run one of them, make sure to explain it very well and tell me how it impacts the round and my vote. I judge rounds based on how persuasive the teams are, and how well they respond to counter-arguments. I've judged LD and PF, but not policy so make sure to explain things and not use jargon. Most of all please be kind to the other team and have fun!

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments that are clear and concise prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Citations

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

I do not look favorably on oral prompting and will see the team as negative for using it.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I prefer value positions to be done robustly and would like strong arguments to support values.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Theoretical and empirical

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

I prefer to avoid them.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Solvency, significance, and the strength of the plan mean the most to me.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

All are acceptable so long as they are on topic and based on the plan presented.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

Theory plans must be based in some sort of reality; I do not like theory plans based on conjecture alone

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

I prefer professionalism and courtesy; actions that are rude or unprofessional weaken my opinion of a team.

I'm new to debate but excited to judge. Please make everything clear, easy to follow, and signpost along the way.

+.2 speaker points if you reference Weezer or Sublime.

I look for a clearly stated, logical argument with clash. Signposts along the way. I appreciate your giving clearly stated voters.

Experience:

I am a parent volunteer judge. I started judging high school LD and PF early 2020 before the pandemic hit. My daily life is spent in the corporate world, in the technology industry where speaking skills and styles vary greatly.

Style:

Whatever the topic, I put my personal opinions aside and face each new debate with an open mind and clean slate. The task is not to change my personal beliefs; it is to argue a point better than the competition. I am looking for well-constructed ideas and effective rebuttal. Affirmative wins when they present a strong case and successfully address and overcome all rebuttal. Negative wins when their presentation shoots holes in Affirmatives case that Affirmative cannot overcome, leaving doubts in Judge’s mind.

Speed:

I understand the need to talk fast in a timed event, however, if I cannot understand your words, then your point is not being made. Please speak clearly and do not run your words together like an auctioneer. In the real world, it is more important to get your point across than to finish quickly.

Students:

Take a deep breath and know that I already think you are amazingly talented and am impressed by your confidence, dedication and determination. The important thing in these competitions is practice and to continually learn and grow. In my experience, learning from mistakes is the most effective.

Hi!

I debated all throughout high school, mostly LD but I am familiar with the other formats.

I don't care about speed as long as you're not tripping up a lot. Tag teaming is fine. I do flow CX and vote on it so keep that in mind. I'll primarily vote on impacts which outweigh the amount of arguments and evidence every time.

No need to ask if I'm ready, I'll be ready unless I say something.

Who I am:

Hi all, I am a retired coach, who now supports this activity through tabroom management. I have coached and judged all Main Events as well as most supplementals. I spent my last few years coaching working with World Schools debate. I really enjoy the style. 

Generally:

I will flow but in worlds specifically I will not base a ballot on a dropped argument. POIs are important and a critical use of time for both sides in the debate and weigh their strategic use heavily. Obviously the event is different than other debate events, please treat it as such. 

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Logical Progression

I want to see an argument presented then linked with supporting evidence. Effective rebuttal of one's opponent is also key to maintaining one's own arguments. I am less concerned with the lingo of flows: if your counter-argument is persuasive it should speak for itself.

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

My paradigm for debate: I was a policy debater in high school. (2007-2011) I like evidence and it needs to connect to the topic and sited correctly. I can handle spewing, but if it gets to much I'll hold up my hand. time signals will be given non verbally by 3min 2min 1min 30 second count down. I will be flowing the round. A good debate should follow the flow and be easy to keep up with. Voters will go a long way. Make sure you follow the golden rule in speech and debate; have fun and learn something.

My paradigm for Speech: Speak well and perform well. watch the verbal pauses and just have fun. I'M a firm believer if the competitor is having fun with their speech the judge will have fun.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Berkeley:

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Hello my name is Mitch Lange and I'm a former high school and college speecher(?) and debater. Events I've participated in at the high school and college level include- Policy, Public Forum, LD, Student Congress, British Parliament (worlds?), Impromptu, Extemp, and Prose. My professional experience in local government administration and my BS in Political Science make me uniquely tuned in to many of the different issues and questions that you all may be presenting.

I don't think I subscribe to any firm paradigm model, I'll generally keep it a bit looser when it comes to this, but I'll tell you specifically what matters most to me from some of the different judging styles.

"Stock Issues and Policy Making"- Need to specifically tell me why I should care about the argument you're making or harms you're presenting. I don't like to care about many things, don't assume I do. You need to make clear links, if your link is shaky then I'm not going to give your impacts that much weight, or any at all. I do like practical applications of arguments as I believe that theory is important, but at the end of the day there are legitimate barriers to getting things done, and if you can point those out and why they do or don't matter then that will be quite effective for me.

"Tabula Rasa"- You're free to bring any arguments, counter plans, kritiks, etc. that you would like. As long as they make sense and you can make a good argument.

"Comms"- While I won't weight this particularly too heavy, I will say that the way you communicate matters a lot. Just like in life, if people have a hard time understanding you, or lose interest in what you're saying, it's going to be difficult to get your point across no matter how effective the argument is on paper. I think lots of folks can take this for granted, so don't. It matters if you're a "smooth talker" and can hold people's attention. With that being said, your arguments still need to be effective for your speaking skills to matter.

You're welcome to talk as fast or as slow as you want, however, just know that if you decide to spew then you need to make sense (if that makes sense?).

I hope this helps, feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like me to elaborate on some of these items.

Good luck and have fun!

Not all arguments carry the same weight. For instance let's pretend we're debating whether or not to paint the external fuel tank on the Space Shuttle (Yeah I know it was years ago but still). The aff argument is to paint the fule tank the neg is to not paint it.

if you have an argument that the paint should be white because it's easier to see by cameras during launch you'll get a point.

However if neg argues it shouldn't be painted due to the excessive weight of the paint, and that weight takes away from how much payload can be launched. This point will be rated higher than the color of the paint.

Or from a sports venicular the color of the paint would be a single while the weight argument would be rated as a home run.

Make your point but pay attention to things that matter and not fluff.

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

I have some experience judging debate and was also a debater in high school, albeit that has been some time ago. I have both judged and participated in LD and PF. I also have one child who has participated in "congress" "LD" and "PF." I do know what to look for and what a debate should look like.

I appreciate civility during the debate and being respectful. I ask that you speak clearly and not so fast that I miss something.

I will flow the arguments and take notes so that I can keep track of each of your arguments.

Be aware of how you are speaking and conducting yourself. There is a lot of value in telling me precisely why your evidence is better than your opponents. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact or is especially persuasive, than you've done a great job.

I will not determine a winner based upon any personal preference about the resolution or the debater, but will base my decision on the strength of the arguments presented and refuted. If an argument is flawed, and the opponent does not refute it, the argument will stand. I will evaluate which team better upheld their main argument with evidence and reasoning; which team was more persuasive; which team provided the most effective synthesis/closing statement; and which team provided the best criteria for me to make a decision.

Hello!

If you're a novice please read this first: Welcome to the amazing world of debate! Seriously debate is freaking amazing, and was definitely the highlight of my time in high school. I learned how to do research, how to express opinions, and most importantly, how to see both sides of an issue (and yes nearly every issue has two legitimate sides). Honestly my biggest piece of advice coming into round is just to stay calm. Debate can be a very scary world to jump into. You'll hear weird debate jargon that no one in their right mind normally uses (Kritik, T-shell, DA- I'm going to be using some of those words below). You'll hear kids speak at ∞+1 words per minute and it will sound like a literal machine gun. And you'll see megafiles with 200 pages of arguments and wonder how anyone can have the time to make those when it took you 2 weeks just to come up with 10 pages of arguments. It can be very very easy to get overwhelmed. So my best piece of advice is just to stay calm. Have fun, enjoy the moment, enjoy the work you've put in to building a case. Understand that no one expects you to be a flawless debater, especially in your first year. I don't expect it, your coaches don't expect it, and you shouldn't expect it either. Just have fun and be willing to learn, and you'll see just how amazing debate can be.

Personal Bio:

Some quick things about me. I graduated from Woods Cross in 2020. I did debate for three years, and spent 99% of that time doing LD. I'm in college now, studying Economics. I was a fairly serious debater while in high school, and I think my judging style reflects that. Speaking of...

Judging Style (LD):

Okay now for the good stuff. One quick note: I firmly believe that you can never "win" a debate, rather all you can do is "win" over a judge. I think this applies to real life too. With that note out of the way, let's get down to business.

*For PF Debate*

I judge PF in much the same way I judge LD, with one main exception. I care far less about the value/criterion debate in PF than I do in LD, and will weight more heavily evidence and statistics rather than just moral arguments. Feel free though to ask me any questions before the round starts (this applies regardless of what event you're doing).

*For traditional debate*

Value/Criterion: This is the first thing I look at at the end of a debate. Essentially, your value/criterion is going to tell me how I should view the round. You do not need a value/criterion to win me over as a judge, just make sure to explain to me why your way of thinking should be preferred to your opponent's way of thinking. The winner of the round will be the debater that most fulfills the winning value. For example, if the winning value is "Nationalism", then the winning side is going to be the one that leads to the most nationalism. Likewise, if the winning value is "Quality of Life", then the winning debater is going to be the one that proves that their side leads to a higher quality of life for all. As such, you do not need to win the value debate to win the round. You just need to show that your side fulfills your opponent's value more than their side does. If neither side defends their value/criterion, or presents one to be defended, then my default value is Quality of Life with a Criterion of Utilitarianism (i.e. whichever side improves the quality of life for the most amount of people wins the debate).

Arguments: Organization is critical. Make sure to show me how your contentions support your framework (or your opponent's framework if that's your style), how your subpoints support your contentions, and how your cards support your subpoints. Well organized arguments are much more effective, easier to flow, and are going to be much more compelling to me as a judge. Well organized counterarguments are simply beautiful to watch. With that said, feel free to brake away from the "traditional" framework if it suits your purposes.

Impacts: This kind of goes along with arguments, but I decided to make a special section just for it because I believe it's SUPER important. Make sure to compare your impacts with your opponents, and tell me why they outweigh.

*For progressive debate*

I'll be honest, I'm much more well-versed in traditional debate than with Kritiks (K's). However, I still love hearing K's, and think the underlying theory behind them is fascinating. If you're going to run a K, or any other form of progressive debate, just make sure that you're organized (yes as you can probably tell by now I'm big into organization). I'll update this more if I start seeing more progressive debate.

Final thoughts:

1. I believe that cross-ex is entirely for the person asking questions. That means that if you ask a question, feel free to politely cut off your opponent after about a sentence or two (please don't cut them off after only two words).

2. There is a difference between attacking your opponent's arguments and attacking your opponent. Attack your opponent's arguments mercilessly. Don't attack your opponent.

3. If you have any other questions, or need me to clarify something, please don't hesitate to ask. This is your round, and I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I appreciate clear and concise communication. If I can't hear you or understand you this will make it difficult for me to judge you positively.

I expect respect for others and will not tolerate incivility beyond the arguments within the debate

I am a teacher at heart. I have also been an actual teacher, but currently I work in medicine and everything I do revolves around helping others to understand complex material in a short amount of time. This means that you must have a firm grasp of your argument, be able to articulate that argument and be able to defend your argument in a way that your intended audience could understand.

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

My name is Kasey and I'm a senior at Whitman College competing in parliamentary debate.

Background: 4 years of high school LD, Idaho circuit.

Speaking Preferences

If you want to talk fast, go for it! – with a few warnings. Online platforms are sometimes not good for clarity, so keep that in mind. If I am unable to make out your argument, I will ask you to slow down, and if your opponent is unable to understand, I ask them to do the same. if your opponent continually asks you to slow or clear and you don't, consider the round lost right there. access comes first, always.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are, please.

Argument Preferences

You can throw pretty much any argument at me and I'll flow it. If I can tell you're running a progressive argument or speaking super quickly just to make your opponent uncomfortable (or you know they won't be able to handle it), we will have a problem. If you want to run something off the wall, you can, but if you are unsure if your opponent is familiar with those kinds of arguments, I just ask you to ask. It's something small we all can do to prioritize education in this space without alienating other debaters. Access first, always.

Warrant, don't forget impact calc,use your framework. I will listen to everything.

---

We might frame debate as just a game, but what's said in this space can have very real, very tangible impacts on the well-being of others. Don't forget that.

if you're not having fun I'm convinced you're doing debate wrong :)

In an effort to ensure that I don't interject my personal bias in the judging I will be focusing on how convincing the individuals are rather than how convincing the arguments are. This statement is a bit confusing, what I mean is that I am focusing on how well the participants articulate and present there case. However, if someone were to successfully challenge my personal bias I will note it. My preference is strong argumentation from facts and reason. There is a place for argumentation from emotion, but I find it less persuasive.

Background:

I’m a working Electrical Engineer and I also teach University classes and workshops in engineering.

Communication:

I look for correct pronunciation, good use of tone and inflection, eye contact, gestures that add to the communication, and appropriate word use. I try to make reasonable allowances when English isn’t a student’s first language. Some speed is okay, but to me extreme speed can indicate poor editing ability. Writing a clear, well-organized, concise speech demonstrates more skill than just writing a long one and reading it quickly.

Case and debate:

I look for and reward unique, insightful arguments, but they must be topical. Avoid speculation and logical fallacies as much as possible, but it can be helpful to point out when your opponent uses them. Support your contentions regarding outcomes of one plan or another with empirical examples that you can demonstrate are relevant when appropriate. I also look for and reward quick thinking, thorough preparation, and grace under pressure. I like an informative or instructive style. Don’t just read evidence; tell me what the evidence means and why it’s important in the context of the resolution.

Scoring:

I like “voters” in the form of a concise and organized conclusion that highlights the strengths of your case and the weaknesses in your opponent’s.

The round is yours, not mine, so I urge you to treat it as such. Speed is fine with me, pending you speak clearly, and I am perfectly comfortable with progressive argumentation like kritiks, plans and dis/advantages (where rules allow).

Line-by-line argumentation (as opposed to crystallization) is generally more effective in driving your point home and extending it across the flow; don't combine crucial arguments in the round.

Please use voters - if you tell me why I should vote for you, I am much more likely to do so. Overall, have fun!

I prefer to see arguments that are directly related to the chosen value-criterion. E.g., if one chooses "cost-benefit", one should not then make their points focus on "quality of life", etc.

Hello, my name is Tori Sandoval.

I competed in Speech and Debate all four years in high school and I am a two-time national qualifier. I have been judging any and all NSDA events for almost 6 years now.

As far as speed goes I can keep up no problem, but you have to be clear. If you are mumbling into your laptop and tapping your foot so I can't hear you then I will probably not catch much of what you say and I will drop your speaks like they are hot.

I don't flow author names so when you say extend paul Newman in 2013 or whatever I have little to no idea what you are talking about.

I don't like it when speed is used to exclude other competitors or members of the debate community. I believe that debate should be an inclusive event rather than exclusive so if your opponent can not keep up with speed don't try to "spread them out".

I try to be tabula rasa[blank slate] to the best of my abilities.

I like clear voting issues given at the end the debate with some solid impact analysis. I tend to vote for larger impacts if the debaters don't make a big deal of how they are winning an impact analysis through the value debate. So if you show me how you achieve your value you win (assuming you've won that your value is the best value in the round), but if you ignore the value debate, which tends to happen most of the time I default to a net benefit evaluation of the round because that minimizes judge intervention. I hope that makes sense.

I expect professionalism at all times from all involved - competitors, judges, and observers are expected to be respectful of themselves and one another, and of the judge.  Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I am happy to keep time for you, or you can keep your own, just tell me what you prefer.  I will keep time for my own awareness either way.  If someone goes over time, it is my job to call it, not the opponent.  Make sure your contentions are clear.  Thank you!

As an attorney and former debater, I judge primarily based on topicality, logic, overall communicative ability.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I enjoy a good debate with a lot of clashing. Debates over definitions are fine but rarely have meaningful impact on the round. Evidence will only be considered if the debator makes an explicit link/impact to the case. Weaker evidence with an explicit impact will trump stronger evidence with no (or only implied) impact.

At the end of the day, I am here to judge you on your abilities to debate and not someone else's. Please keep that in mind. I look forward to a good round.

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Contention 1, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Contention will be of a larger impact than Team A's contention 2 which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Please speak slowly and clearly, I need to be able to hear and understand everything you say. I evaluate whether you convinced me that your position is more true than your competitor. Professionalism, respect, and good sportsmanship is a must.

Policy:

I am a stock issues judge (stock issues: significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency.) If the affirmative leaves the round with all five stock issues, they will generally take my ballot. I like to see credibly supported impact calculation; if the negation does not provide a risk of disadvantage I will generally swing affirmative. You will be hard-pressed to win my ballot with kritiks or theory debate; if you argue a kritik or theory, ensure that its premise is well-thought-out and supported. I will vote on counter plans. Counterplans must prove mutual exclusivity and win the impact calculation. I will flow, and I can flow quickly. However, I do not respond well to abnormal breathing or shotgun style spreading.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I am a morals and ethics judge. The value criterion debate is very important to me. I am more likely to vote on moral and ethical issues than straight evidence in Lincoln-Douglas. Presentation and persuasion are also big voting issues for me.

Public Forum:

I am a communications and evidence oriented impact judge. I strongly believe that public forum is for the public; you will generally loose my ballot if the general public would struggle to understand your arguments. Do not expect to take my ballot with theory debate, kritiks, or shotgun style spreading. I will vote heavily on well presented credible evidence coupled with clear refutation and impact calculation. I will vote on ethical issues if the arguments are well presented, supported, and clearly resolution oriented.

Congress:

I am a communications and clash judge. I side with well structured and presented speeches that present new arguments or refute arguments on the floor. The citation and use of evidence are big deals for me. I also want to hear why what you are discussing matters in the grand scheme of things. Is your point more impactful than representative so and so's? Does your argument disprove the argument presented by representative so and so? Questioning time is also a huge ranking factor for me. Ask unique and clear questions.

Big Questions:

I am a heavy clash and communications judge. You will struggle to take my ballot without a crystal clear explanation of why your case is superior to your opponents. Clash is king in a debate. Debate cases should not be ships crossing in a night; let the cannon balls fly! Practical application, resolution oriented framework, and resolution oriented definitions also tend to be strong voting issues for me.

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Hi!

Email Chain: xumandi5678@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Highland ’20, Columbia ’24

- Summary -- > ex-debater, tech over truth as long as you’re clear; warrant & weigh

General:

· I did debate all through high school in Idaho. Policy for the first two years, PF for the last two with a bit of LD mixed in. Worlds at Nats’19. PF at Nats’20.

· I do flow, please signpost clearly though

· Tech over truth but just make sure you’re giving me warrants

· Speed is okay but please be clear

· Time yourselves but I’ll time as well. I don’t time evidence transfer, just don’t take too long

· I won’t call for evidence unless it’s contested by your opponent with a reason given. Make sure it’s a cut card too

· Please don’t be rude, unnecessarily aggressive, or just plain mean. If you’re sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you.

Debate Specifics:

· Make sure to collapse, depth is better than breadth

· Weigh, tell me why you’ve won, not just where

· If you’re extending offense don’t just tell me to extend it through the flow, warrant it

· Clash is good, impacts are great, voters too

· I’m not very familiar with prog stuff but I do find them fascinating. It’s been a long time since I’ve done policy so if you choose to run a K or something, do so at your own risk, and don’t assume I have any clue what you're talking about

Feel free to email me if you have questions before the round and feel free to ask me in the round as well. As always, good luck and have fun! :)

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.